Category: Media

Aren’t reporters supposed to be impartial people reporting the facts?

Scott Pelley fired from ’60 Minutes,’ deepening turmoil at CBS News

CBS News fired longtime “60 Minutes” correspondent Scott Pelley on Tuesday, a day after he reportedly said Editor-in-Chief Bari Weiss was “murdering the show” and accused its new producer of having “slender qualifications” for the job.

The move deepened the turmoil at the nation’s most influential TV news program, days after a leadership overhaul.

Pelley, 68, criticized management Monday during a fiery staff meeting with Nick Bilton, the program’s new executive producer installed by Weiss last week, according to a detailed report on the Status website.

In a termination notice obtained Tuesday night by The Associated Press, Bilton, a technology journalist and filmmaker with no traditional broadcast news experience, accused Pelley of carrying out an “ambush” against him.

“Yesterday, you hijacked my first meeting with staff to disparage me, my qualifications, and my intentions with remarkable incivility and contempt,” the letter states.

Pelley said in a statement that “60 Minutes” has lost its DNA under new management. He accused them of asking him to “inject falsehoods and bias” into his work, without sharing specific details.

Pelley is accused of a ‘performative display of hostility’
Status, which said it had a recording of the Monday meeting, reported that Pelley had said Weiss was brought in to kill the news outlet, “and she’s doing exactly that.” Weiss was not present for the meeting.

Continue reading “”

Associated Press caught producing anti-gun advocacy

Lee Williams

Traditional journalism is pretty simple, really. If you’re writing about a complex issue, make sure to include all of the sides.

For example, most political stories usually involve two sides. A good reporter will include both sides in their fair and balanced story and then let the readers decide whom to believe. If the journalist only includes one side in their story, it becomes advocacy instead of journalism, which should be avoided.

No one should know this better than the Associated Press, which was founded in 1846—15 years before the start of the Civil War. During the AP’s vast 180-year history, they’ve had a bit of experience producing good journalism, at least until now it appears.

AP reporters Josh Funk and Claudia Lauer published a story Thursday titled: “Amtrak may make it easier to bring guns on its trains despite the alleged attempt on Trump’s life.”

Quite frankly, it needed a bit of work.

Their story only includes comments from one side, John Feinblatt, whom the reporters only identified as the “president of the advocacy group Everytown for Gun Safety.”

The AP reporters never mentioned that Feinblatt is also president of the Trace, which is paid to produce anti-gun propaganda, or that both anti-gun groups are funded by former New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg.

Certainly, these omissions would have helped Funk’s and Lauer’s readers put Feinblatt’s comments into better context.

Feinblatt, of course, used the story to further erode our Second Amendment rights.

“Just days after a man took an Amtrak train to Washington with a shotgun and pistol and tried to assassinate the president and other federal officials, the Trump Administration is trying to open the floodgates for firearms on every Amtrak route, while also moving to hollow out the agency responsible for enforcing gun laws and preventing gun trafficking. This will only make Americans less safe and Congress must step in before the next tragedy,” the AP quoted him as saying.

A pro-gun voice could have pointed out Feinblatt’s dual anti-gun roles, or that millions of riders have safely carried firearms aboard Amtrak for years, or that Congress has far more important things to occupy its time than turning trains into yet another anti-gun zone.

Funk, who was evidently the lead reporter, did not return emails seeking to interview him about his story. Unfortunately, that was expected, since the AP is not nearly what it used to be.

Since the mid-19th century, the AP served a vital role for newspapers, but not anymore. Print readership has tanked. The two largest newspaper chains in the country, Gannett and McClatchy, both dropped AP in 2024. The third largest newspaper firm, Lee Enterprises, announced it will be dropping AP at the end of this year.

Just last month the AP announced it was offering buyouts to a large number of its U.S. staff. They did not publish the number of staffers who would be losing their jobs.

Takeaways

One thing is certain: There will always be a market for factual and accurate journalism, but by publishing only one side of an important issue with layoffs looming, the Associated Press may get what it certainly deserves.

 

UNBELIEVEABLE: CNN Using Assassination Attempt to Call for More Gun Control

SAF Investigative Journalism Project

ANALYSIS: Just minutes after the third attempt to kill President Donald J. Trump, in addition to senior members of his staff, CNN’s Idiot-in-Chief Brian Stelter was calling for more gun control.

“As CNN anchor Victor Blackwell put it when I joined him on air this morning, ‘The people in that room were confronted with what schoolchildren and moviegoers and congregants and people at grocery stores have been confronted with, and that is the threat of gun violence.’” Stelter wrote in an analysis piece titled: “An extraordinary moment for America’s media elite is all too ordinary in America.”

Ah, the poor media elite felt confronted. Really? The bad guy didn’t even enter their room. Many media elites never even heard any gunshots.

Stelter quoted another CNN hack, Jim Sciutto, whose comments you can probably already imagine.

“One thing we know is that there will be a lot of discussion afterwards about security measures. (A discussion about) rhetoric, perhaps, as well. There won’t be any substantive discussion about access to weapons, right? There just won’t,” Sciutto reportedly said.

Continue reading “”

Beware the Democratic ‘pseudo-recession’ that’s destroyed past presidents.

Back in 1992, as the presidential campaign approached, incumbent President George HW Bush was seen as a shoo-in for reelection.

The First Gulf War ended in 1991 with a spectacular US victory at the head of a coalition that had expelled Saddam Hussein from Kuwait with few losses.

For much of 1991, Bush’s approval ratings hovered between 90% and 70%.

By February 1992, an obscure Arkansas governor, Bill Clinton, emerged as the favorite Democratic nominee.

But he was written off as having little chance to knock off the popular Republican incumbent with far more foreign affairs experience.

Bush, however, had just lost his brilliant 1988 campaign manager, Lee Atwater, to cancer.

Most important, the US economy in 1990 had experienced a mild recession that had bottomed out in early 1991.

By the 1992 election, the United States was headed to full recovery.

In the last six months of 1992, GDP rebounded at an astonishing 4%.

The inflation rate in the months before the election was often less than 3%.

Even stubborn unemployment, at 7.3%, was starting to fall.

The eight-month recession officially ended in March 1991, followed by continual positive economic growth.

No matter: The canny Clinton campaign still ran on the directive “It’s the economy, stupid” and the slogan “Putting people first.”

Clinton’s theme song was the upbeat Fleetwood Mac hit “Don’t Stop,” highlighting the young Clinton-Gore ticket’s supposed contrast to the 68-year-old Bush.

Key to the Clinton campaign rhetoric was a false charge: “the worst job growth since the Great Depression.”

By November 1992, Clinton had convinced voters that the prior year’s recession was still in full force.

The doom-and-gloom, near-depression “recession” rhetoric, together with Perot’s third-party candidacy and Bush’s sluggish campaign, won Clinton the presidency with 43% of the popular vote.

Continue reading “”

Newsweek Puts Out Misinformation on our New Research Comparing Armed Civilians to Police in Stopping Active Shootings: Study Praising Armed Civilians Sparks Criticism

Our research is available here. After the Newsweek was published on Friday, November 21, 2025, the reporter updated her article on Monday, November 24, 2025.

Devin Hughes, founder and president of gun violence research organization GVPedia, told Newsweek, “The paper is fraud, which I do not use lightly.”

Hughes alleges that the study defines active shooter incidents differently from the FBI.

“Lott’s study then only applies that new definition to cases in which there was a defensive gun use, while deliberately excluding thousands of cases in which a defensive gun use did not occur,” Hughes said. “This deceptive tactic allows Lott to claim that the percentage of active shooter cases stopped by a defensive gun use is vastly higher than it is in reality, regardless of what definition of an active shooting one uses. The end result is blatant statistical malpractice.”

Lott told Newsweek that the FBI’s definition excludes gang violence, drug related violence and shootings in relation to another criminal act.

“The FBI defines active shooter incidents as those in which an individual actively kills or attempts to kill people in a populated, public area,” Lott said. “But it does not include those it deems related to other criminal activity, such as a robbery or fighting over drug turf. Over the period from 2014 to 2024, the FBI includes 14 cases where a legally armed civilian used a gun to stop an active shooting attack. We think that the number is 199. We thought it was useful to fill in the rest of these cases using the exact same definition that excluded ‘gang violence,’ ‘drug related violence,’ and ‘shootings in relation to another criminal act’ to see how police and civilians compared in dealing with these attacks.”

Jenna Sundel, “Study Praising Armed Civilians Sparks Criticism,” Newsweek, November 24, 2025.

Dr. Lott’s response to this point included this.

While I appreciate you making some updates to your article, you make it sound as if it is just our word versus Hughes when you simply write “Lott told Newsweek that the FBI’s definition excludes gang violence, drug related violence, and shootings in relation to another criminal act.” But I have provided you links to the FBI active shooting reports where you can confirm for yourself that the FBI does in fact exclude these types of crimes (see the fourth paragraph on page five in their first report and page 2 in their latest report. It is something that they list out in EVERY report in between these two reports).

Continue reading “”

WSJ Launches Another Attack on ‘Stand Your Ground’ Laws

In late October, the Wall Street. Journal ran a big piece claiming that “it’s easier than ever to kill someone in America and get away with it,” because of Stand Your Ground laws. The paper claimed that justifiable homicides by civilians increased by 59% from 2019 through 2024 in a “large sample of cities and counties” in 30 states with Stand Your Ground statutes, compared with a  smaller 16% in in total homicides in the same jurisdictions.

As we noted at the time, the WSJ’s piece had several flaws, including ignoring the fact that, besides the 30 states with Stand Your Ground statutes, there are another eight states where Stand Your Ground is found in common law. And importantly, the paper’s investigation didn’t really spend any time at all considering whether the law is allowing more people to legitimately act in self-defense.

Well, now the WSJ is out with a followup of sorts, this one allegedly focusing on “the self-defense cases that made Jacksonville No. 1 in legal homicides.” And yet again, the paper’s reporting alleges that Stand Your Ground laws are letting an untold number of people get away with murder.

Continue reading “”

Wall Street Journal’s Misrepresentation of Stand Your Ground Laws Great for Prosecutors

Stand Your Ground laws get a lot of press, and most of it is based on absolute nonsense. They repeat a lot of pathetic talking points with no bearing on reality, but we haven’t seen much lately about them.
But then the Wall Street Journal stepped up and unleashed the stupid.
It starts with their headline, proclaiming, “Six Words Every Killer Should Know: ‘I Feared for My Life, Officer’.”
In theory, it’s an exploration of the increase in justified homicides that has happened since such laws became the norm. That’s probably a worthy topic of examination, too, because how many people would have been free had some prosecuted not convinced a jury that the person who actually was afraid for their life really could have gotten away?
Because that’s all these laws do. They make it so you’re not required to retreat first before using lethal force in self-defense, and that means no one can play Monday morning quarterback and decide there was an opening in a gate behind a dumpster you totally could have used to get away.
But no, that’s not what the WSJ does. Instead, we get this crap:

“It’s easier than ever to kill someone in America and get away with it.

In 30 states, it often requires only a claim you killed while protecting yourself or others.
While Americans have long been free to use deadly force to defend themselves at home, so-called stand-your-ground laws in those 30 states extend legal protections to public places and make it difficult for prosecutors to file homicide charges against anyone who says they killed in self-defense.
The number of legally sanctioned homicides by civilians in the 30 stand-your-ground states has risen substantially in recent years, The Wall Street Journal found in an analysis of data from the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
Justifiable homicides by civilians increased 59% from 2019 through 2024 in a large sample of cities and counties in those states, the Journal found, compared with a 16% rise in total homicides for the same locales.
With more guns in more hands, families are grieving loved ones lost to quick-tempered killings, often involving law-abiding civilians, with no one held accountable.
A retired Las Vegas police officer walked free after fatally shooting a retired computer network engineer during a dispute over who had the right of way in a Walmart parking lot. Both men got out of their vehicles. Both were armed. The ex-officer said the retired engineer pointed a gun at him first.
“Only two people know what happened,” said Kathleen Hoy, the dead man’s widow. “Unfortunately, my husband is dead.”
That’s the case they wanted to lead with?
I mean, sure, there are only two people who know what happened, but the fact that both men were armed suggests that there’s at least some reason to believe it’s justified.
Stand Your Ground laws don’t condone murder simply because you say you were afraid. You have to actually have a reason to be afraid.
The fact that the retired engineer in question was armed at least lends credence to the retired cop thinking his life was in danger. The fact that there wasn’t any other evidence one way or another is just how it goes sometimes.
Look, justified homicides are up, but part of that is that violent crime is also up. From the relative low of 2019, we saw a massive spike in the homicide rate in 2020 that is slowly trickling downward. With more violent crime, you have more cases where people are going to legitimately fear for their lives. Seeing an increase over such a short span is hardly shocking.
Maybe the scale of the increase is surprising, but again, how many people were really and legitimately afraid for their life before their state got a Stand Your Ground law, but went to prison because a prosecutor convinced a jury they had an avenue of retreat they totally could have made, even if the shooter didn’t think they could?
Honestly, this is trainwreck journalism. This is as biased a report as you’re going to see, and the Wall Street Journal is supposed to be more conservative than the Old Gray Lady.
This looks straight out of the New York Times’ playbook, though.

BLUF:
As with the Ad Council, the federal funding these Agree to Agree “funding partners” enjoy isn’t gun control specific. However, taxpayers should be aware that organizations that receive significant federal resources are involved in propaganda to undermine their fundamental rights.

Why are Tax Dollars Funding a Civilian Disarmament Industry Anti-Gun Agitprop TV Ad Campaign?

The idiot box has been living up to the nickname.

In recent months television viewers have been subjected to a series of anti-gun propaganda pieces produced by the Ad Council. Dubbed the Agree to Agree campaign, the ads typically feature a misleading talking point about “children” and firearms followed by an invitation to go to the Ad Council effort’s website where visitors are bombarded with further gun control agitprop. The website even invites visitors to learn about how to secure red flag gun confiscation orders.

The name might suggest an effort to bridge political disagreements, but the campaign’s list of “stakeholder partners” shows it’s a gun control effort through and through. So-called “stakeholder partners” include: Brady: United Against Gun Violence (formerly Handgun Control, Inc.); Giffords (formerly Americans for Responsibly Solutions and the Second Amendment-denying Legal Community Against Violence); Everytown for Gun Safety; and the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Violence Solutions at the Bloomberg School of Public Health (named for billionaire gun control financier Michael Bloomberg). Handgun prohibition organization Violence Policy Center is not listed, although their longtime benefactor the Joyce Foundation was involved.

The campaign’s headline factoid is the following: “Gun injuries are now the leading cause of death for children and teens ages 1‑17, surpassing car crashes for the first time in two decades.” To justify the claim, the Ad Council cites a report from the Bloomberg School of Public Health.

For decades, gun control advocates and their allies in “public health” have pushed misleading talking points about children and firearms and NRA-ILA has repeatedly called them out for it.

Continue reading “”

Trump on the Verge of Ending the Israel-Hamas War, and the Left Is Furious About It.

It’s one of the strangest spectacles in modern politics — watching left-wing pundits struggle to process the possibility that President Donald Trump could be on the verge of ending the Israel–Hamas war.

Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu shocked the world with a bold peace plan to end the Israel–Hamas war and stabilize Gaza. On Friday, Trump gave Hamas a deadline — accept the deal by Sunday at 6 p.m. Eastern or face consequences. Hamas quickly responded, agreeing to give up control of Gaza and release all remaining hostages, while saying some details still required consultation with other Palestinian factions. Trump’s firm deadline and direct approach have already accomplished what years of empty diplomacy never could — real progress toward peace.

But, rather than celebrate the prospect of peace, some commentators seem triggered by the idea that Trump, of all people, might succeed where countless global leaders have failed.

On the latest edition of CNN’s Newsnight, foreign affairs analyst Reena Nina laid out the complex diplomatic environment surrounding the ongoing negotiations. “This is a moment where you’ve got so many of the right things lined up,” she said, noting that regional pressure on Hamas has intensified. “In the Arab world, there’s a — I’m hearing a great deal of pressure from countries like, you know, Turkey and Qatar, saying to Hamas, you’ve got to do this and take this deal.”

Nina added that Hamas “realizes there aren’t a lot of windows of opportunity for this,” referencing the earlier Gilad Shalit prisoner swap. “You’re waiting for 20 hostages that are living, that we believe are still alive and possibly as many as 30 bodies,” she explained. Then she made a striking admission: “I do believe this window of opportunity is real… because I really believe President Trump. I really believe he will unleash hell and fury if they don’t follow through with this.”

Even CNN host Abby Phillip couldn’t deny the implications if this pans out. “If President Trump is able to do this, this is a major—it’s a major victory for him,” she said, before quickly pivoting to suggest Trump’s motives might not be purely humanitarian. “He wants the war to end for a lot of reasons. Some of them are personal reasons. He wants that Nobel Peace Prize,” Phillip said. But even she conceded that Trump “does not like the idea of all the death and destruction.”

That’s when the tone shifted from analysis to thinly veiled resentment. Liberal commentator Alencia Johnson admitted it was “challenging to actually hear that piece of, you know, Trump being—potentially being the one to get the ceasefire deal.” Her discomfort was palpable. “I would be interested to understand President Trump’s interest in this,” she said, suggesting skepticism about his motives. “He has said some things that are very harmful to the Palestinian people. I don’t know, you know, what his motivations are.”

Imagine being so consumed with Trump Derangement Syndrome that you’d actually lament the prospect of peace simply because it might make Trump look good. Alencia Johnson’s comments captured this perfectly — the left’s reflexive inability to acknowledge any Trump success, even one that could save lives. Ending a brutal war and bringing home hostages should be something everyone celebrates, yet Trump’s critics sound almost offended that he might be the one to accomplish it.

CNN’s Scott Jennings was having none of it. “This is not a political issue,” he said bluntly. “Look, President Trump has been clear from the beginning he wants the hostages back.” Jennings reminded viewers that Trump “had an initial deal to get some hostages” soon after taking office in January, but that “Hamas reneged on that deal.”

“He’s been clear from the beginning,” Jennings said. “I just want these people back. The people who are alive, we pray that they’re still alive, the remains that exist — it all needs to happen and it needs to happen quickly.”

He didn’t mince words about Hamas either: “I don’t want to be strung along by these terrorists. I want the hostages. That’s what the President wants. And I don’t want him to give them very much time because they don’t deserve it and these people need to come home. We’re almost two years into this.”


Even CNN’s own analysts couldn’t deny the magnitude of the moment, yet the left’s sheer disgust at the possibility of Trump succeeding was unmistakable. You could practically hear the resentment in their voices — not because peace might finally be within reach, but because Trump might get the credit. That’s the sickness at the heart of modern leftism: they would rather see war drag on, hostages remain in tunnels, and innocent people suffer than admit that President Trump’s leadership is delivering results they could only dream of. It’s petty, it’s ideological, and it’s downright shameful.

Gun Control Disconnect: Media Overlooks, Misunderstands 2nd Amendment

By Dave Workman

ANALYSIS—Amid various reports on gun control published in the aftermath of the Annunciation Catholic Church shooting in Minneapolis in late August and last week’s assassination of Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk, emerging from the reportage are some possibly uncomfortable facts.

Reports such as one from the Minnesota Reformer’s Madison McVan acknowledge how it “it’s not clear” whether any of Minnesota’s “stricter-than-average gun laws” would have prevented the fatal church shooting.

Likewise, writing at The Free Press, Deputy Managing Editor Joe Nocera acknowledges, “To be sure, no workable gun law would have prevented Kirk’s assassination. His alleged killer showed no signs of mental instability; the gun he used was a bolt-action rifle, owned by millions of Americans; and he was old enough to simply walk in a store and buy it.”

A look back in history underscores the apparent reality disconnect about existing law and mass shootings.

Continue reading “”

Somebody Finally Admits It!
Licensed Citizens are “Responsible Gun Owners”

Here’s something you don’t see every day, especially at a “mainstream” publication such as Axios, where a recent story — which (full disclosure) included a quote from yours truly — featured a stunning acknowledgement from the CEO of the Alliance for Gun Responsibility, a Seattle-based, billionaire-backed gun prohibition lobbying group.

“While we acknowledge more guns pose a greater threat to our communities, CPL holders tend to be responsible gun owners,” Alliance boss Renee Hopkins told Axios.

From an anti-gunner in the Evergreen State, that’s a choking mouthful. Just to make sure it wasn’t a typo, I spoke with reporter Christine Clarridge, a veteran journalist not known for flubbing a quote and was satisfied the remark was accurate.

Which raises the question: If the gun control crowd admits law-abiding, legally-armed citizens are not a problem, why do anti-gun-rights advocates continue pushing legislation which they know will only affect the good guys? The easy answer: They know honest citizens will remain so and they also know trying to get criminals to comply is a dead-end endeavor.

Back in 2021, Dr. John Lott, founder and CEO at the Crime Prevention Research Center, did an essay on just how law-abiding CCW permit holders are. To give readers an idea about where his research went, Lott wrote this: “In Florida and Texas, permit holders are convicted of firearms-related violations at one-twelfth of the rate at which police officers. In the 19 states with comprehensive permit revocation data, the average revocation rate is one-tenth of one percent. Usually, permit revocations occur because someone moved or died or forgot to bring their permit while carrying.”

Dr. John Lott, founder of the Crime Prevention Research Center,
says private citizens licensed to carry are far more law-abiding
than most other people.

He added, “Academics have published fifty-two peer-reviewed, empirical studies on concealed carry. Of these, 25 found that allowing people to carry reduces violent crime, and 15 found no significant effect. A minority (12) observed increases in violent crime. These 12, however, suffer from a systematic error to varying degrees: they tend to focus on the last 20 years and compare states that recently passed concealed carry laws with more lenient states that had sustained growth in permits over the past two decades. The finding that crime rose relatively in such states is consistent with permit holders reducing crime.”

The Axios piece centered on Clarridge’s report about the rising number of concealed pistol licenses in Washington state. I’ve been reporting on this for some years, but the establishment media avoids the story like the Olympic shooting competitions. Nobody on the left wants to acknowledge the Evergreen State has more than 709,000 active CPLs, and that roughly 20 percent of those licenses are held by women. What’s the number in your state, and what percentage of armed citizens are women?
Continue reading “”

The Hearing Protection Fearmongering Continues

The Hearing Protection Act should survive the Byrd Rule challenge it’s currently dealing with, in part because, as Cam noted on Wednesday, it deals with the tax portion specifically. Remove the tax, and there’s no reason to have a registry, which was just about knowing who paid the tax.

The National Firearms Act really revolves around taxes, not availability. The way those who passed the law saw it, it didn’t violate the Second Amendment because it didn’t tell anyone what they could and couldn’t have.

Yet now that suppressors are potentially being removed from the NFA, the usual suspects are losing their minds.

And they’re fearmongering like crazy about it, such as in this op-ed.

The budget bill passed by the U.S. House of Representatives and now before the Senate has rightly drawn a lot of criticism for its sharp cuts to Medicaid. But what has largely escaped the public’s attention is the part of the bill that would aid mass shooters, terrorists, and assassins by deregulating gun silencers.

Silencers on guns make it harder for ordinary civilians and police to hear the sound, see the flash, and quickly detect the location of the shooter. Thus they can serve to facilitate mass shootings.

In Virginia Beach, Virginia, in 2019, a gunman who shot and killed twelve people used a silencer. At first, those present didn’t even know that a shooting was underway. Some of them began running but didn’t know which way to go because they hadn’t heard the gunfire.

I find it amusing that the author had to go back to 2019 to find a high-profile case involving a legally purchased suppressor.

First, Virginia Beach kind of proves that their inclusion on the NFA doesn’t stop bad actors from doing bad things with legally purchased suppressors if they decide to do so.

Second, this whole thing was written by someone who learned everything they know about suppressors from television or movies. A number of suppressors don’t even lower the sound of a shot enough to justify shooting without hearing protection in some cases, and none make those shots whisper quiet. Sure, people didn’t recognize the sounds at first in Virginia Beach, but part of that was simply because they didn’t realize what they were hearing in the first place.

I also notice that the author didn’t mention the murder of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson. His alleged assassin, Luigi Mangione, allegedly used a 3D-printed suppressor that he didn’t purchase legally.

Unfortunately, legalizing silencers fits the pattern of Trump’s second term gun policy. He weakened the Brady background check system by revoking President Joe Biden’s Zero Tolerance Policy. Under it, the licenses of gun dealers could be cancelled if they failed to run background checks as required or sold guns to prohibited people. And Trump’s Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) would even allow “irresponsible and dangerous gun sellers who lost their licenses because of willful violations of the law to get back into business,” as the group Brady United put it. They can simply reapply.

And this is how you know this writer either doesn’t know what the heck he’s talking about or is actively lying to his readers.

The policy didn’t somehow make it possible for licenses to be revoked for breaking the law. That’s always been on the table, as well as prosecution, should a licensed dealer fail to conduct a NICS check or knowingly sell a gun to a prohibited person. That’s still something dealers face should they do such a thing.

That wasn’t Biden’s “Zero Tolerance” policy.

What his policy did was lead to licenses being revoked for things like abbreviating a county instead of spelling it out, or misunderstanding when the 72-hour waiting period for a NICS check properly starts.

So, with either such a poor understanding of what that policy did or a propensity to outright lie to his readers, why should anyone take his expertise on suppressors seriously?

There is no reason.

Suppressors aren’t commonly used in crimes, even with them being available for 3D printing these days. They add bulk to a gun and make it harder to conceal, which most bad guys prize for various reasons. They also have a finite lifespan, which means you can only get the sound suppressed so many times before it stops.

But hey, when you’re focused on fearmongering to delusional nutjobs who are predisposed to being lied to on guns, what else can you expect?

 “The New York Times just ran a 1,400-word story to explain what cross necklaces are.”

The New York Times just wrote a 1,400-word article about a hip new symbol that everyone seems to be wearing these days:

 

This is literally The New York Times right now:

 

Across TikTok, young Christian women have been sharing the meaning behind their own cross necklaces, saying they help cultivate a sense of belonging and connection with others.

Sage Mills, a student at the University of Oklahoma who has posted videos about her cross necklace, said that seeing women in government like Ms. Leavitt and Ms. Bondi wear their own ‘makes me feel good. It makes me feel like God is the important thing for people that are governing our world.’

I guess these gals are all radical Christian nationalists!

In recent months, pastors with Christian nationalist beliefs have been invited to the White House numerous times.

UH OH!

 

 

The Times has the history lesson for anyone confused by this strange symbol.

The cross, a symbol most associated with the crucifixion of Jesus Christ, first emerged during the Roman Empire when it was an instrument of mass torture, said Robert Covolo, a theologian and associate pastor at Christ Church Sierra Madre near Los Angeles.

By the 4th century, Mr. Covolo said that Christians had begun to use the cross as an emblem of their religion. Not long after, the cross became a focal point for daily jewelry. Cross jewelry dating as far back as the 5th century is prevalent in the collection of the Victoria and Albert Museum in London.

Think about it: A 1,500 word article … in what used to be the most prominent newspaper in the world … explaining the cross to an American audience.

 

 

 

For real! Look at how they describe women in the Trump admin like strange creatures:

Cross necklaces have, in a way, become the jewelry of choice most associated with President Trump’s second administration.

Ms. Bondi owns several cross necklaces but most often appears at official events in a diamond-set version purchased at Mavilo, a jewelry store in Tampa, Fla.

Ms. Leavitt, the White House press secretary, has frequently worn a large cross pendant at press briefings. But Ms. Leavitt is not the first press secretary to wear a cross: Kayleigh McEnany, a press secretary during Mr. Trump’s first term, also wore one.

In an email, Ms. Leavitt, 27, called the cross necklace ‘the perfect accessory to any outfit,’ adding that she wears the cross ‘because it serves as a reminder of the strength that can only be found through faith.’

These conservative women … who can understand their strange ways??

 

 

What a time to be alive!